ASA didn’t stage hearing for Ann
● Athletics SA (ASA) found Comrades Marathon star Ann Ashworth guilty on two charges without holding a disciplinary hearing or without having a disciplinary committee in place.
Papers before the Johannesburg High Court show the decision to charge her on several counts last year was taken by ASA’s presidium, a three-man team comprising president Aleck Skhosana, vice-president Harold Adams and CEO Richard Stander.
Ashworth wants the court to set aside the two guilty findings — for bringing ASA into disrepute and not being properly licensed to participate in athletics events — as well as the two final written warnings she received.
ASA charged the then newly crowned Comrades queen after she had publicly rejected her selection to ASA’s team for the world 100km championships.
Reputational harm
She claimed she didn’t have enough time to prepare for the event, and cited two “botched” trips by two previous road-running teams. Ashworth also accused ASA of not investing in road-running development.
Skhosana said in his answering affidavit that Ashworth’s public comments had caused ASA reputational harm. It was difficult to source sponsorships partly because “sponsors do not wish to be associated with these events because of the conduct of runners, such as the applicant [Ashworth]”.
Ashworth disputed this, countering it was “particularly disturbing” that Skhosana seemed unwilling to consider the possibility that the federation’s sponsorship difficulty could be “a direct result of the manner in which ASA is administered”.
Ashworth quoted a letter she received on July 19 2018 stating “that ASA, via its disciplinary committee”, had decided to start disciplinary proceedings against her.
She alleges the board did nothing more than rubber stamp the decisions to charge her and find her guilty the following month.
“It is plain the board ... made its decision ... in a manner which was actuated by bias.”
Skhosana, in his answering affidavit, denied Ashworth had been misled about the disciplinary committee, saying it was acceptable for the presidium to act in that role.
“The matter was at all times discussed with the board,” he added.
He argued that a hearing had not been necessary under the circumstances. This decision was further justified to avoid “the massive expense” that would have been incurred by Ashworth and ASA, he said.
“If any such cost-benefit analysis was to be done, it was to be done by me, and not ASA purporting to act on my behalf,” said the runner, adding that the ASA constitution contemplated a disciplinary committee that was independent of the board.